ROC CUTTACK SAYS SUBSEQUENT FILING OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT MAY CURE THE COMPLIANCE BUT DOES NOT ERASE THE DEFAULT ALREADY COMMITTED BY SHAKTI CHROME LIMITED
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Registrar of Companies, Cuttack, has imposed
penalties under Section 137(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 on Shakti Chrome
Limited and its officers in default for the delayed filing of the Financial
Statements for the Financial Year 2022-23.
The Financial Statements were required to be filed on
or before 31 October 2023, but were actually filed only on 09 July 2026.
ROC FINDINGS
The ROC held that although the company subsequently
completed the filing, the delay constituted a continuing default and did not
extinguish the liability for penalty.
ROC IMPOSED ₹3,58,000 ON COMPANY AND OFFICERS
The ROC observed that subsequent filing cures the
compliance but does not erase the default already committed. Accordingly,
penalties were imposed for the period from 01 November 2023 to 08 July 2026
under Section 137(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.
COMPANY PAID BELATED ROC FEES FOR AOC-4 BUT STILL IT
WAS FINED FOR NON-COMPLIANCE AND DEFAULT
While delayed filing may rectify the default for
compliance purposes, it does not absolve the company and its officers from
penalties for the period of default.
Timely statutory filings are essential to avoid
adjudication proceedings and financial penalties.
# Your Knowledge partner R V Sekar 79047 19295,
